-Gov. John Hickenlooper, after learning that Amendment 64 for the legalization of marijuana had passed in Colorado
I get it. It's funny.
But it reinforces the belief that marijuana legalization is a trivial matter. It's not.
In the last 40 years, according to Fox News, the United States has spent over $1 trillion dollars on the war on drugs. Every year, almost one in every 300 Americans is arrested for a marijuana violation. About one in every six Americans who is in the federal prison system, is there because of marijuana. Meanwhile, three-quarters of the population opposes prison sentences for marijuana offenses.
There's an enormous disconnect between who we think should be going to prison and who we're sending to prison, and most of it can be blamed on senseless drug laws.
Many prominent economists, including a good chunk of high profile conservative ones, strongly favor legalization, for all sorts of reasons. While there is plenty of conjecture to the contrary, the actual evidence has shown that the relaxation of marijuana laws has an inverse correlation with underage use and traffic fatalities. According to one study:
Traffic fatalities [are] the leading cause of death among Americans ages 5 through 34. The first full year after coming into effect, legalization is associated with an 8 to 11 percent decrease in traffic fatalities. The impact of legalization on traffic fatalities involving alcohol is larger and estimated with more precision than its impact on traffic fatalities that do not involve alcohol.Draconian enforcement of marijuana is stupid. It's not supported by reason or evidence. It's unpopular. It has ruined millions of lives. It's hugely detrimental to this country financially. Its prohibition has led to the creation of powerful cartels that terrorize millions on both sides of the border.
So no, this isn't about Cheetos and Goldfish, Gov. Hickenlooper.
It's about creating revenue for schools, rather than depleting state resources on a futile campaign to prevent something that cannot be stopped. It's a collective decision by a sovereign population to stop sending people to jail for something generally considered to be a trivial vice. It's a long overdue recognition that simple marijuana possession is not worth the attention of law enforcement authorities.
This isn't about starting an obsession with marijuana, Mr. Hickenlooper. It's about ending one.
Great post, I'm going to repost something I posted elsewhere if that's OK:
ReplyDeleteI voted for 64 and 301, believing that too many resources are needlessly wasted on a drug with similar or arguably less negative effects than alcohol.
That said, we have opened a Pandora's box with this being an individual state issue, and we will need to prepare for it. I'm not worried about people using or growing in their homes. But, social media comments are full of people joking about moving/visiting to CO, which highlights the point: while I believe it will be safer for individual, responsible users, I believe overall use will go up, and this will include visitors from out of state cramming as much of a high as they can into a short vacation. (I saw the same thing in Amsterdam -- tourist use was much more blatant than the casual and subdued use by locals). And this will be a unique problem precisely because of the legality in only 2 states, combined with our long history of prohibition in the U.S. I also believe we'll see an issue at the beginning of semesters at CO colleges (and an increase in applications!), for despite the age requirement, an underage smoking ticket is surely more palatable than a felony would have been.
There'll be some bumps in the road at first, but let Colorado show the nation we can be responsible and respectful, and when people start experimenting, stay the heck away from the car. Encourage your friends to do the same.
*
One minor thing I'll disagree with:
"It's about creating revenue for schools" -- if the counter-argument is that people perceive certain negative externalities, I don't think generating revenue for schools is a sufficient response to those arguments. Likewise, if it's truly a harmless decriminalization, I don't think revenue-generation for schools is necessary, either.
But, your link made me think more about the tradeoff of possible decreased alcohol-DUI's if THC is chosen instead of alcohol. I'm not fully convinced by the current research and statistics about reductions in accidents after MMJ and extending that to recreational MJ, but it's an intriguing possibility and makes sense among responsible users.
I think our biggest challenges will be dealing with "new" users in the form of visitors and college students, and the pent-up effects of prohibition, before things settle a bit -- hopefully at more of a national level. And we need to educate about mixing THC with alcohol.
Net conclusion: I think we'll get a bump in accidents and maybe a high-profile accident or two involving a visitor or new student. But we may also get a decline in DUI's from people with a "Native" bumpersticker. And cops are going to have to figure out how to discern proof of influence, esp. when biomarkers for THC are more residual due to fat-solubility than for alcohol, e.g.
Good post!
I mentioned revenue generation for schools because it's directly in the amendment itself. First $40 million of revenue goes to the schools. As for negative externalities in general, I think a heavy dose of taxation will more than make up for them. This will definitely help the State of Colorado's fiscal situation.
DeleteAs for alcohol-related deaths, I think the implication from this study is that stoned drivers kill fewer people than drunk drivers. It isn't insinuating that anyone's being any more responsible than before, just that one kind of irresponsibility is marginally less dangerous than the other.
As for the conclusion that there will be a net bump in traffic-related fatalities in Colorado after the amendment, I'm skeptical. There would have to be an enormous amount of pot-related tourism-accidents to have an impact on overall driving-related data in the state. Thousands of pot-tourists sharing a rental car or carpooling are going to have to get into a lot of accidents to outweigh the hundreds and thousands of Coloradoans who drive lots of miles to work every day (and to happy hours twice a week).
I'm sure there will be some pot tourism, but I don't think Colorado will turn into Amsterdam. Medical marijuana is legal in more than 1/3 of the country now. That stuff is the same stuff that will be for sale in Colorado. I'm just not sure it's all that exciting anymore. But I could be wrong.
But I agree that implementation is going to be awfully complicated and messy. And the feds are going to send a lot more people to jail before they're through (if they ever stop). Just as our society has a strained and tenuous relationship with alcohol. So we will have it with pot. And as you point out, considering we're one of only two states to legalize it, we're going to have it in spades.
Nonetheless, I still think it beats the alternative.
Yeah, by a 'bump' in traffic-related fatalities I meant that there will be some increase in THC-related accidents specifically, based on availability and tourism -- but wonder how much of that will be tempered by a potential decrease in DUIs. I wouldn't be surprised if net fatalities went down as a raw measure, and especially if adjusted for (any) increased population and tourism.
ReplyDeleteI think the more realistic potential for a bigger public perception problem would be a high-profile accident involving a stoned driver and some kids or pedestrians or a peloton or something. Or a big I-70 ski weekend entanglement =) By that, I mean, policy and perception are often too much drama-driven rather than data driven. Keeping that in mind, then, I get frustrated when I hear the extreme pro-pot/NORML/High Times arguments that pretend there will be zero problems. We need to do our best to get people planning ahead of time to get weed and stay home or have a DD. And I do think recreational use is going to be noticeably different than just MMJ, as there was criminalization, social inacceptance, and a bit of deception and work required to try to get it for non-med purposes.
I think it would be interesting to look at immediate post-21st amendment media coverage of alcohol-related news stories (obviously driving was significantly different though). We need good perception and good behaviour to last through the next election cycle for the whole thing to stick.
And yes, still outweighs the expensive alternatives.
I agree that there will be problems. And I agree that there aren't enough moderate voices to counterbalance both the reactionaries and the High Times crowd.
DeleteIt makes sense to expect a rise in THC-related accidents, fatal and otherwise. And you can bet that local and national media will probably sensationalize the first noteworthy example they can find. And many thereafter.
A family getting killed by a drunk driver isn't national news, because it happens all the time. But the first time a family is killed because they were high from weed purchased legally in Colorado, it will test the resolve of all sides.
Hopefully the data will bear out that this law change won't significantly increase total fatalities, adjusted for tourism and other factors. As long as that's the case, I'll be happy.